And yet there are still plenty of people on Twitter mocking and belittling him every day. I’ll believe he’s capable of controlling the entire internet when he shows an ability to control his own website.
Why on Earth would Trump shut down the internet? He is a creature of the internet. The first memelord president. He’s terminally online.
It’s like the Bane speech. Other politicians think the internet is their ally; Trump’s political career was born in it. Molded by it. His campaign didn’t touch grass until it was fully fledged, and by then reality was toxic to it.
Without the internet, how will his followers mainline weapons grade misinformation directly into their veins?
Will Trump commandeer the internet (as in the US Internet backbone)?
Legally? No.
Will he try regardless? Yes.
Will he succeed? Yes, for a bit.
‘I’m not shutting down the internet, I’m just stopping non-Americans from using our internet’?
And did they replace Hitler in 1943?
Trump is, this week, openly trying to destroy the American economy, defying court orders, and acting like he is either insane or brain damaged, and the American government just happily keeps cooperating with him. But don’t worry! They’ll stop him, uh, any day now!
Indeed. Kamala Harris is not going to rise from the ashes in the third act and suddenly take him down, or whatever.
If we are very, very lucky, we survive with some sense of normalcy until the mid-terms, and then the Democrats win both houses of congress, and we limp along for another two years in a governmental stalemate. None of those things are assured of happening, and possibly not even likely to happen.
I’d give a remote chance of Trump being able to take over the internet, but a very high chance of being able to break it. As @DWMarch reminds us, there are many points of vulnerability that can be physically attacked. DNS, network interconnects, and data centers.
Sure, there are data centers all over the country, but how many masked ICE agents is it going to take shutdown a data center? This isn’t enemy territory that needs to be held with boots on the ground. Cut the power (and backup power), chain the entrances closed, and it’s done.
I think that is all highly unlikely. Much more likely is simple closing of media outlets and persecution of journalists and activists that dictators have always engaged in.
Funny how both of you ignored the second half of that post;
The point is that even in a regime much more idealogically captured than Trump’s there still was dissent in the upper ranks.
The I in ICE doesn’t stand for “Internet”. Why would they be involved in any such process?
I was assured in January by various posters that at this point, the media would already have been shut down, most of us on this board would be in jail, homosexuality would be illegal in all 50 states, and we’d be waging nuclear war against the Global South for the purpose of exterminating about 90% of the human race.
I’ll believe Trump can actually achieve any of these doomsday scenarios when he shows an ability to even handle the stuff he’s openly trying to do competently.
Because they’ve already shown they are an organization willing to ignore legal and constitutional rights to do as ordered.
As for the “reason”, what does it matter? They’ll make up some story about tariffs on data packets, foreign spies in the microchips, or maybe just that nice catch all: national security. The compliant media will give credence to the lie be repeating it endlessly, even as they question it.
Again, I don’t think breaking the internet is likely, because the old standbys of disappearing and renditioning the troublemakers still work fine.
They’re just getting started. It’s not even been 3 months. I hope the disorganization and pettiness is more destructive than effective, and the regime collapses.
It took Hitler 56 days to become a dictator. If that was Trump’s aspiration, he’s missed his shot - an aspiring autocrat needs to be popular to get away with becoming a dictator, whereas Trump’s approval ratings are underwater even in highly partisan polls such as Rasmussen, that unpopularity is entirely of his own making, he’s facing public protests on a scale unseen in American history, and every day he gives people who voted for him a new reason to regret it. A regime that resorts to telling people that poverty and manual labor are good things that you should be looking forward to engaging in is not one with a mandate to impose autocracy.
At this point I’m not sure that even a 9/11-sized event could change his fortunes because of how badly he’d bungle the response.
American history would like a word with you.
I’m convinced that if Trump had handled COVID with even a small amount of competency he’d have won in 2020. I’m also convinced that Bush only won a second term because of 9/11. His response was idiotic, but at the time was incredibly popular.
If there is a Trumpression, it will be catastrophe of his own making. Many of his fans won’t care, and will still love him, but I’m not sure he’ll be able to spin it enough to stay popular. Economic tides that presidents have no control over bring down the administrations, I can’t see weathering on own goal.
To keep it on topic. It is in these throws of unpopularity that I see bringing down the internet. “It’s all fake news, and we’re taking care of it. The people who say these awful things are being sent to bad, very bad, places, that they won’t enjoy.”
Declare some websites illegal, take them down, declare all except approved sites illegal, and break everything.
We had six million people turn out on Saturday, and with every passing week the protests are becoming larger and more numerous. When was the last time one in every fifty Americans were marching in the streets at the same time?
New thought, so starting a new post.
Trump will take over the internet because Congress will pass laws giving him that ability, and the Supreme Court will allow it, even when to the rest of us they look like obvious first amendment violations.
These are bipartisan bills, that Democrats are too angry at tech to realize they’re handing Trump a censorship stamp.
First would be repeal of Section 230. The main thing 230 does is make it much quicker for cases to be dismissed when sites are sued for certain types of content. In a just world, even without 230 the sites would eventually win on first amendment grounds.
The proposed “Take It Down Act” is supposedly a way to combat non-consensual porn, but Trump came right out and said he plans to use it for himself.
More things, like some proposed anti-piracy bills that would allow rights holders to take down supposedly infringing sites.
Really, just scroll Techdirt. The commandeering of the internet will be authorized by Congress, with most Dems supporting it.
You’re comparing one Saturday to the years of Civil Rights and Anti-War protests?
Here’s a one day event I marched in,
1,000,000 people in just one city.
So about the same as New York on Saturday, then.
It took us two months to get to six million. Where are we gonna be another year from now, if Trump is even still alive and in office by then?
Remember when Trump “unpardoned” Biden pardonees last month? And everyone ignored it because that’s not something a president can do?
I expect the same to happen if he declares that he wants websites shut down for being mean to him - there’s not even a fig leaf of a legal way of doing it, and Trump isn’t powerful or popular enough to dispense with the pretense of democratic government.
I’ll be surprised if ANY meaningful legislation gets 60 votes in the Senate between now and November 2026. This Congress is too dysfunctional to pass anything besides CRs and bills to rename Post Offices after dead senators.
The point was/is that the internet grew out of a Cold War project(ARPANET) intended to produce a robust communication network able to survive a nuclear war.
So the underlying technology is such that it’s decentralized and able to withstand the loss of multiple nodes, which means that the goons would h to shut down every single telecom company and other entity who runs their own networks.
FB has already washed its hands of control. They are unlikely to add controls anytime soon.
No they’ve clicked their heels and said “yes, right away trumpenfuhrer”
Of course if trump decides he wants more strenuous controls, or more accurate tracking of “undesirables” on the Facebook platform, I’m sure zuck will see the error of his ways and stand up to Trump. Just like the GOP did.
I hope so, but when the only one opposing a particular bill is Ron Wyden, it has a good chance of passing.
This is the beauty of getting rid of 230 and passing other censorship bills. Right now, if I post a message saying
Trump Lackey is actually an emu in a human suit.
When TL’s lawyers sue the SDMB, the SDMB can say, “don’t talk to us, talk to @echoreply, he’s the one who posted that lie.”
Without 230 SDMB and the mods may find themselves responsible for something I said. Maybe the SDMB lawyers can get out of it on first amendment grounds, or a jury decides I’m 98% responsible for the libel, and SDMB is only 2% responsible. Either way, SDMB’s (and the mod’s) exposure is much greater.
So just the opposite of the small sites being left alone, instead they’re put in a position of deciding if it is worth the risk of staying open. Look at the results of the UK’s Online Safety Act. Hundreds of small sites closed, because complying with the regulatory requirements is too much of a burden.
So the big players can be kept under control through political pressure, and the small players are scared away by threats of liability and over regulation.